The
Complete and Utter Destruction of Modern Atheism
By
G. Brady Lenardos © 2008 -2009
When
one thinks of the modern day atheist, one may think of a rational person,
perhaps a scientist, an empiricist; someone who deals with the hard facts
found in the world around us, someone who does not accept unjustified
beliefs. At least, that is the image the atheist would like you to have of
him. But images can be deceiving. This paper will show that there is a
disconnect between this image of the atheist compared to the implications
of the basic elements that make up the atheists theory of reality. What I
mean by this is: we are going to find that if any atheistic theory of
reality is true, then there is no justification for any knowledge about a
world around us. Such a conclusion would completely and utterly destroy
the image of the atheist we started with. He would no longer be able to
talk about the hard facts found in the world around us. The most he
would be able to assert is that he BELIEVES he knows about the world
around him; but anything he says about the world around him is merely his
statement of faith. It would be an unjustified belief.
Now,
I am not saying that we don’t know about the world around us, I am just
pointing out that the elements of any atheistic theory of reality do not
allow for the justification of that knowledge. We must keep this in mind
at all times. The question is not, can we know anything at all about the
world; but, given any atheistic theory of reality, can we know anything
about the world?
Let
me further explain. The modern atheist says he knows something about the
world (this could be anything, from something small, such as a blade of
grass is green; to something large, such as the universe began with a big
bang). When asked how does he know? He replies, “Through empiricism,
science, the hard fact of the world around us.” What the atheist is
saying is that the basis of his knowledge of specific things in the world
is empiricism, science, the hard fact of the world around us. These latter
three are the preconditions to his knowledge of the world. Without them,
he could know nothing of the world around him. They are necessary elements
to him knowing about the world. But they do not stand alone. They also
have preconditions or supporting elements that make them possible. Here is
a short list of necessary preconditions the atheist (or anyone for that
matter) would need to support the above:
1)
sense
perceptions that tell about the world
2)
the
uniformity of nature
3)
inductive
principle
4)
deductive
principle
If
any of these were missing, one could not know anything from empiricism, or
science, or know any of the hard facts from the world around him.
For
the rest of this paper we will examine just one of the above four
preconditions. We will see if any atheist theory of reality has the
necessary elements to support or justify sense perceptions. In other
words, what are the elements in any atheistic theory of reality that makes
us think that our sense perceptions tell us about the world around us?
Once you see how this works, you can easily plug in the rest to see the
results for each.
The
lower levels support the higher levels. But we are not done yet, there is
one more level, the very basic level: one’s theory of reality. One’s
theory of reality is the glasses one uses to see everything else. It is
this level that must have the elements to support the entire philosophical
structure. If it does not, then the entire structure falls apart.
The
philosophical term for a theory of reality is metaphysics. All worldviews
have metaphysics. In fact, you can’t have a worldview without one. When
some one says that God exists or someone else says that God doesn’t
exist, they are talking metaphysics. When we say the universe exists, we
are talking metaphysics. Whenever we talk about the basic elements that
make up reality or the nature of those elements, we are talking
metaphysics.
You
can think of metaphysics like the foundation of a worldview. In many ways
it is like the foundation of a building. The shape of the foundation
determines the shape of the building. The design and structure of the
foundations determines much of the buildings ability to withstand
earthquakes. The height of the foundation may determine whether the
building will be flooded or not. One’s metaphysics will have
implications in epistemology (one’s theory of knowledge), in
anthropology (one’s theory of man), in ethics and even in aesthetics
(one’s theory of the beautiful).
Metaphysics
is made up of two areas of study:
1)
Cosmology
2)
Ontology
Cosmology
tells us what elements exist or don’t exist in a particular theory of
reality. For instance, in western atheism, the cosmology is called
naturism or naturalism. It states that God does not exist and that nature
(the universe) does exist.
Ontology
tells us something about the basic nature of reality. For instance, in
naturalism the nature of the universe is impersonal; the universe does not
think or act, it is not volitional. Everything in the universe is what it
is unintentionally (there is no intention for it to be what it is).
As
has been said, the elements of any cosmology and ontology have
implications. In this paper we will examine the implications of all
logically possible atheistic metaphysics, to see where they lead. I think
you will be surprised. We will go step by step through all atheistic
theories of reality. Not only will we show that the elements of all
atheistic theories of reality are insufficient to justify sense
perceptions, but all of them actively destroy the possibility for any
justification of sense perceptions.
Let’s
begin by analyzing theories of reality. The first thing we will find is
that there are two main categories that all cosmologies fall into; they
are atheism and theism (see chart 1)
The
Theistic category says that one element of reality is the existence of
God. The Atheistic category says that in the scheme of reality, no God
exists. Since this is an antithesis, all cosmologies will have to fall
into one of these two categories. In other words, there is no logical
third option possible.
At
this point someone might think of agnosticism as a third option. But that
is not the case. Agnosticism does not have a theory of reality. The term
tells us that the person who claims to be an agnostic is not expressing
theories about ultimate reality, but rather he is making a personal,
psychological statement about himself. The agnostic upon being asked if
God exists in his theory of reality answers, "I don't
know." The agnostic's answer does not tell me about his theory of
what exists, but about himself. His basic position as an agnostic prevents
him from entering the debate on a theory of reality. By his own admission,
he doesn’t know, he has nothing to add to the discussion.
In
looking at cosmologies, we must also realize that the number of elements
is very limited. This means that the number of logically possible
cosmologies is also limited. When it comes to Atheistic cosmologies there
are only two possible options.
Let’s
look at the elements of the atheistic cosmologies.
The
first one we’ll call negationism. It is found in some eastern
philosophies. It basically says that no God exists, and that the universe
does not exist either, everything is an illusion. You can probably
understand why it is not a very popular cosmology.
The
second one we’ll call naturism (also referred to as naturalism).
This cosmology says that nature is all that exists. This theory denies the
existence of any God. Nature is all that there is. If anything that anyone
calls a god does exist, it is derived from nature. This position also
entails what we will call accidentalism or unintentionalism. That is to
say, everything is what it is unintentionally; there is no intended reason
behind anything being what it is. This is the theory behind all western
atheism.
Let’s
see what we have now in chart 2.
Let’s
begin our analysis with negationism. Since everything is this view is
illusion, it would also be true that we are just illusions and so are our
perceptions. There would be nothing real to perceive and no one existing
to perceive it. So, I think it is quite clear that if this theory of
reality is true, there can be no justification for our sense perception.
In fact, not only are the elements of this theory insufficient to justify
our sense perceptions, this theory completely denies the possibility of
sense perception.
So,
if negationism is true, then our sense perception, science and empiricism
are all unjustified and indeed, all an illusion.
Since
negationism cannot provide a justification for our sense perceptions, we
now must turn to naturism to see if a justification can be found there.
The
elements found in naturism are reality consists of no god exists, just
nature exists and everything is what it is unintentionally.
Unintentionalism
is the key to our next point. If everything is what it is by accident or
unintentionally, then so is the way that every particle, atom and molecule
interacts with every other particle, atom and molecule. There is no
intent, reason or justification for them being as they are. This is true
from the smallest scale (the particle level) to the largest scale (the
entire cosmos). It also applies to who and what we are. From a naturalist
point of view, you can say things are what they are, but no justification
can be applied to what or why they are. To do so would be to deny the
basic concept of unintentionalism. So, there is no reason or possible
justification for thinking that our sense perceptions give us information
about the world around us. I am not saying that our perceptions don’t
give us information about the world around us, I am just saying that the
naturalist theory of reality does not allow for a justification that our
sense perceptions do tell us about the world around us. In other words,
given the naturalist theory of reality, there can be no reason that our
sense perceptions should tell us about the world around us. Let me
put it this way, given the elements of the naturalist’s theory of
reality it is possible that our sense perceptions are telling us about the
world around, but it is just as possible that they are not. We can never
know.
There
is also no way we can independently verify our sense perceptions. We have
no way to take our perception in one hand and independently compare it to
part of the world in our other hand. All we have are our perceptions.
Given
that there is no universal reason that can be deduced from the
naturalist's theory of reality to justify our sense perceptions and no
independent means of verification, we are left with the conclusion that
the naturalist’s worldview not only lack sufficient elements to justify
our sense perceptions, but the elements it does have prevents any possible
justification.
Chart
4 now shows us where we stand:
The
next question that will come up is, are these really the only logically
possible atheistic cosmological positions? Let’s ask a few questions to
find out. Don’t all atheistic cosmologies have to include the element
that God does not exist? I think we can with assurance answer, Yes, to
this. The next question is about the existence of the universe, does it
exist or not? If one answers it doesn’t, he finds himself at a dead in,
negationism. If he answer that the universe does exist, we move to the
next question. The next question is about unintentionalism. There are
three possible positions here:
Everything is what it is unintentionally
Everything is what it is intentionally
Some things are what they are intentionally.
The
latter two require an intender be involved either in all things or some
things. May I suggest that a cosmic intender might be a problem for any
atheistic position? So we are left with just unintentionalism, everything
is what it is unintentionally. So, here we are at naturism.
Since
we have now shown that the only logically possible atheistic cosmologies
are negationism and naturism, and since we have shown that neither of
these can offer a justification for sense perceptions, we have shown that
if ANY atheistic worldview is true, there can be no justification for
sense perception (Chart 5).
So,
where does this leave the modern atheist? Let’s see: There is no reason
for the atheist, given any atheistic theory of reality, to believe that
his sense perceptions are telling him anything about the world around him.
The basic assertion that his sense perceptions do tell him about the world
around him is an unjustified belief.
Based
on this unjustified belief, the atheist builds his case for empiricism and
science, but if the foundation is unjustified, so is every thing that is
built upon it. So, his assertions about empiricism and science are just
more unjustified beliefs that he holds. Since the empiricist believes that
all knowledge comes through the senses, all knowledge must be unjustified.
There is no other option, given any atheistic theory of reality.
The
only option the atheist is left with is to give up one or more of the
following:
*His
unjustified beliefs (he may become a nihilist).
*His
atheistic cosmology (and find a cosmology that does have the elements
necessary to justify sense perception)
*Logic
In
my discussions with atheists on this topic I have found that virtually all
of them give up logic. The logical and consistent option, if the person
wants to hold to an atheistic cosmology, would be to embrace nihilism.
Everything he asserts about the world around him is based completely on
faith, not reason. The atheist should be willing to admit his position is
unjustified, and in fact, there is no way for him to know anything about
the world.
But
perhaps some may think that I just don’t know what I am talking about.
The fact is that every major philosopher from John Locke on has recognized
some aspect of this problem regarding sense perception. Most major modern
philosophers admit their lack of a adequate solution. As Kant put it:
"It must still remain a scandal to philosophy and to the general
human reason to be obliged to assume, as an article of mere belief, the
existence of things external to ourselves (from which, yet, we derive the
whole material of cognition even for the internal sense), and not to be
able to oppose a satisfactory proof to any one who may call it in
question" -Critique of Pure Reason, pg 39.
What
did the famous atheistic philosopher Bertram Russell offer as a solution?
“This discovery, however -- which is not at all paradoxical in the
case of taste and smell and sound, and only slightly so in the case of
touch -- leaves undiminished our instinctive belief that there are
objects corresponding to our sense-data. Since this belief does not
lead to any difficulties, but on the contrary tends to simplify and
systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for
rejecting it. We may therefore admit -- though with a slight doubt derived
from dreams -- that the external world does really exist, and is not
wholly dependent for its existence upon our continuing to perceive it.
“The argument which has led us to this conclusion is doubtless less
strong than we could wish, but it is typical of many philosophical
arguments, and it is therefore worth while to consider briefly its general
character and validity. All knowledge, we find, must be built up upon our instinctive
beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is left. “
(Underlining added by me for emphasis)-Bertrand Russell, Problems of
Philosophy, Ch. 2 - here is a link
to the entire chapter
The
problem that Russell does not address is that even though a belief may be
instinctive, that does not make it true. That is Russell’s leap of
faith. There is no justification for it. So, accepting that our sense
perceptions tell us about an actual external world is for Russell a matter
of preference and not the reasoned conclusion of an argument. Why does he
accept it? He tells us in the second paragraph above. If it is rejected,
he is left with Nihilism. He prefers faith in sense perception to
nihilism, regardless of the logic. The atheist has no real justification
for his position. He can either hold it on faith or take the logical step
and become a nihilist.
Consider
the following scene: Two friends meet on the beach in
Man
1: Hi, what are you doing standing on the beach?
Man
2: I am going to
M1:
Really? How are you getting there, by cruise ship?
M2:
No.
M1:
By plane?
M2:
No.
M1:
By some other kind of ship or boat?
M2:
No.
M1:
By submarine? Hehehe!
M2:
No
M1:
OK tell me, how are you going to get to
M2:
I just am going to.
The
atheist is in the same position as our traveler. Our traveler does not
have the needed method to get to
The
atheist has no justification that his sense perceptions tell him about
reality. He can either hold that they somehow do based on blind faith or
take the logical step and become a nihilist.
Objections
-
I
have talked with many atheists about the above argument before writing it
down. As of yet no one has offered a rational defeater to my argument.
The
easiest way to refute my argument would be to simply offer a justification
for sense perception based on the elements of any atheistic theory of
reality. Show how one would reason from those elements to the position
that sense perception tells us about the world around us.
Another
way would be to show my argument to be faulty. It is a deductive argument.
So, if someone could show the form of the argument is invalid, or that one
or more of the premises were false. It could be defeated that way.
As
of yet, no one has even tried to offer a refutation as described above. So
far the only attempts have been based on logical fallacies. The two
arguments, I guess I should say fallacies, which I have heard numerous
times are as follows:
Objection
1— “You
are in the same boat as I am, you can't justify sense perception from your
theory of reality either!
Answer—
First, the assertion that I can’t justify sense perception from my
theory of reality is unproven, before you can make that assertion you have
to provide the argument for it.
Second,
it wouldn’t matter if I was in the same boat as you. That does not
further or change your position. Regardless of who is in the boat with
you, you still remain in the boat. The atheist's failure to justify sense
perception from the elements of his theory of reality remains.
This
objection is known as “Tu Quoque,” or the “You too! fallacy.” It
is a fallacious means of reasoning. It falls under the category of
“fallacies of relevance,” for the reason I mention above.
Objection
2— “Suppose
you and I are walking in the desert somewhere and I see what appears to be
an oasis in the distance (trees and a pool). I say to you that I believe
there's an oasis ahead of us in the distance. You look in the same
direction, but you don't see the same thing. Maybe you see something that
looks like some shimmering object in the distance, but no oasis. Here we
have a ‘perception’ that needs to be ‘justified.’ How would we do
it? Surely we do it by getting closer to the apparent object and making a
closer observation. A closer look will either verify my first perception
or show it to have been an illusion. Wouldn't this be a case of one
perception being justified by other perceptions?”
This
is one of the many forms I have seen of this objection. They all come down
to the same thing; they attempt to use sense perception to justification
sense perception. The above author goes so far as to admit it in his final
sentence.
This
is the fallacy of “Petitio Principii,” the vicious circle or begging
the question. The argument given above merely asserts that since I have
sense perceptions that agree with each other, therefore sense perception
is justified, my perceptions must be telling me about the world around me.
But consistent numerous sense perceptions do not demonstrate that his
sense perceptions have anything to do with a real world, it merely
tells us that his perceptions are consistent.
A
linear argument begins at point A then goes to point B, and ends at Point
C. The above form of circular argumentation begins at Point C (individual
perceptions), and attempts to justify point B (sense perception in
general), without addressing point A at all. Point A (the elements of any
atheistic theory of reality) is completely ignored. In this way the
proponents of this fallacy are admitting that they cannot use the elements
of any atheistic theory of reality to justify that sense perceptions are
telling them about the world around them.